Tuesday, October 28, 2008

7 Days Left

I am disappointed in the lack of conviction around this here bloggy world. I can find plenty of posts about cute shoes, great drapes, or even better casseroles.

But HELLO EVERYBODY! There is a rising up of people who believe counter to God's Word and what it has to say about His creation. There is a growing majority of individuals who believe that Barack Obama's plan for stealing "the redistribution of wealth" is a good idea.

I don't think things happen on accident because I serve a God who set forth plans ... plans that shall come to pass. Even something as seemingly insignificant as blogging can have purpose.

There is too much at stake to worry about whether or not a stranger might take offense in reading about abortion.

Randy Alcorn responds to the question about why he doesn't care for the other needy and dying children, not just the unborn.

Here is his answer:

Actually, all the royalties from all of my books go to help the needy, including feeding and clothing and relieving the suffering of children all over the world. We give to prolife work, but far more to famine relief and development. By God’s grace, over four million dollars has been distributed for people-helping causes in the last number of years, much of it to children.

It’s curious that because I’m expressing concern about unborn children, people assume I don’t care about children who are already born. I do. But neither of the two major presidential candidates is advocating the legalized killing of already born children. However, one is advocating the legalized killing of unborn children. Since it is already illegal to kill the born, I’m talking about the rights and needs of the unborn.

I don't get the idea that it would be necessary to choose. It makes no sense.

I hate child abuse, cancer, cold weather, and horse radish.

All at the exact same time.

But if we were to govern one of those issues it would be child abuse. The government would never allow such a thing to be legal and even provide funding and assistance to those hoping to commit child abuse. We (Christians) would never align ourselves with a candidate who advocated such an act and I am certain that we would like to think that we could actually stand up and speak out and say the words, It. Is. Wrong.

Randy also addresses the Chuck Baldwin voters who are anti-McCain because of his position on stem-cell research and the exception for abortions in rape and incest cases. Here it is:

Suppose in the town you live in, there’s a lake where, for the last thirty-five years, children have been taken by parents to be drowned. Say that every day 100 children are brought to this lake.

As a town citizen, you are presented with two candidates for mayor. (You can vote for a third party, but clearly one of these two candidates will be elected.) One candidate publicly states that he believes the right thing is that the children not be brought to that lake. They should be allowed to live, except the one or two conceived by rape. By longstanding town law the 100 daily drownings are all legal, and the mayor can’t change the law. However, this mayoral candidate has publicly stated that the law should be changed, and he hopes to appoint judges who help that happen, so that 98 or 99 of the 100 children would live rather than die.

Now, the deaths of those one or two children conceived by rape should rightly disturb you. And if until now zero children had been killed at the lake, it would be evil to vote for a man willing for one or two to be legally drowned. But for thirty-five years, 100 children have been killed there each day. This man is trying to move the town in the right direction, even though he has stopped just short of a 100% reversal. No additional children will be killed if his position were in place, because those one or two children would have been killed anyway under existing law. But 98 or 99 a day would be rescued from the death they will face if his position isn’t put in place.

The other mayoral candidate believes that not one of those 100 children chosen for drowning by their parents should be rescued. He believes that the doctors holding them under the water should be allowed to do this. He is prochoice about the drowning of children. In the last twenty years there have been some limited prolife measures voted in by townspeople that have made it more difficult to drown children, saving some lives. But this candidate has promised to sign a bill that would remove all those restrictions. He would invalidate the requirement that doctors explain to parents what it means to drown a child. He would invalidate the law that requires grandparents to be notified if their children are going to drown their grandchildren.

In fact, this man has said of his own daughters, “If they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby.” He would support their right to hire a doctor to drown their babies, his grandchildren, in the lake. And he promises the town’s legal drowning organization, which makes considerable money by drowning children, that he will only appoint town judges who are in favor of the legalized-child-drowning laws.

Now here is our moral dilemma. Our next mayor will either be the 98%-don’t-drown-the-children candidate OR the 100%-drown-all-children-whose-parents-don’t-want-them candidate.

We could write in someone who has no chance of winning. It would be a protest vote, showing we don’t totally agree with either candidate. However, if others who believe all babies deserve to live do this same thing, the result will be that the 98% prolife candidate can’t win, and the 0% prolife candidate will be our mayor.

If you vote for the candidate in favor of saving 98 babies, it could be argued that you would be voting for the lesser of evils, since killing one or two children is evil. But after all these years of child-killing, you see the opportunity—if the 98% prolife mayor takes office and makes those prolife court appointments, countless future children’s lives could be saved. It’s not certain, but it’s a real possibility. And what is certain is this: if the candidate in favor of legalized child-killing wins the election, due to his agreement to remove any of the town’s existing child-killing restrictions, more children will die who wouldn’t have if the other candidate takes office.

6 comments:

Anonymous
said...

Thank you for the words that need to be spoken, need to be whispered on our knees, need to be shouted from our roof tops. I pray our silence in not apathy, but grief at the unspeakable evil that is abortion.Lea Ann

All I have left is prayer and my vote on Tuesday. But I live next door in MD where, I'm afraid, my vote will not matter. But I will cast it anyway. Because I have lived under communism and I never want to see its face again. Because American values matter, and one candidate chooses to consciously and willingly trample them. I don't blog. I pray, I homeschool and I give praise for our country! God is in control!

Thank you for your post Kim! I 100% agree. I will be voting McCain/Palin next Tuesday. I absolutely cannot understand how a fellow believer could vote Obama. It just doesn't make any sense. We Christians must make a stand. Our future and our kids future is at stake!

I love it that you have the courage to tell the truth. I get so discouraged that people would rather stay on the sidelines and bicker and complain than get in the game and vote and take action.Keep standing up for the truth.

About Me

I am a wife, home & haven maker, and homeschooling momma to five beautiful blessings. God has poured His grace and mercy on me and it spills over into my life every single day. I pray that my life gives honor and glory to Him!